Unseating horseman: commercial harvesting right and the natural resources transfer agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishR. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901, is the principal judicial authority for the proposition that the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements (NRTAs) with the three prairie provinces extinguished the treaty rights of Indians in those provinces to hunt or fish for commercial purposes. This article argues that that proposition — the “extinguishment hypothesis” — needs and deserves reconsideration. It is inconsistent with the rest of current Canadian law on extinguishment. It draws no support from the text or the legislative history of the NRTAs, from the arguments offered in favor of it in the Horseman decision, or even from the judicial authorities cited there to substantiate it. It was quite unnecessary to the result in Horseman. And it has troubling practical consequences for the treaty peoples it affects. The difficult question is how to bring this issue back before the Court for fresh deliberation. francaisR. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901, represente la principale autorite judiciaire pour la proposition voulant que les Conventions sur le transfert des ressources naturelles (CTRN) avec les trois provinces des prairies ait mis fin aux droits conferes par traite aux Indiens dans ces provinces, de chasser et de pecher a des fins commerciales. Cet article fait valoir que cette proposition, « l’hypothese d’extinction », exige et merite consideration. Elle est incompatible avec le reste des lois canadiennes actuelles sur l’extinction. Elle ne s’inspire ni du texte ni de l’historique de la legislation des CTRN, des arguments presentes en sa faveur dans la decision Horseman, ni d’ailleurs des autorites judiciaires mentionnees ici pour en fournir la preuve. Ce n’etait pas necessaire au resultat de Horseman. Les consequences pratiques en sont troublantes pour les peuples des traites que cette decision touche. La question difficile est de savoir comment ramener cette affaire devant la cour pour une nouvelle deliberation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".